Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Medieval creep

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Europa Universalis III 46143 EU3 - After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
I think that EU should have two types of game-modes. First would be sort of sand-box like game, much like EU3, in which you could select any tiny faction, conquer an empire, and go on unrestricted, and the AI factions would be free to do whatever their AI-scripts conceive. The second game mode would make some OPMs extremely hard (even unplayable if necessary) and would also restrict AI behavior according to strict historical precedence.

Basically two kinds of modes: a very historically accurate, heavily scripted campaign, and a freer possibly wildly implausible sand-box adventure.
 
victimizer said:
I think that EU should have two types of game-modes. First would be sort of sand-box like game, much like EU3, in which you could select any tiny faction, conquer an empire, and go on unrestricted, and the AI factions would be free to do whatever their AI-scripts conceive. The second game mode would make some OPMs extremely hard (even unplayable if necessary) and would also restrict AI behavior according to strict historical precedence.

Basically two kinds of modes: a very historically accurate, heavily scripted campaign, and a freer possibly wildly implausible sand-box adventure.
Click to expand...

I'm throwing money at my screen but nothing's happening. Maybe it's because I'm using euros.
 
Taylor said:
Well now it has. Before, people in this thread were complaining about, among other things, the Byzantines (Note the words in italic). Then, some people suddenly started ranting Byzantium's defense, basically telling everybody who agreed with OP that they were lazy, selfish and stupid, and then this thread got way off track. To me, they sounded completely over the top and offensive for no good reason.

And btw, I'm another person who doesn't like starting at a later date. Because I then basically get less content b/c so much effort has been put in the early years.
Click to expand...

The only time the word lazy was used was in reference to people refusing to start at a later date. That has nothing to do with Byzantium's "defense". And you calling it "ranting" is pretty offensive. This one country has nothing to do with the problem originally being discussed, but it remains that it was brought up for no reason and used as an excuse for people to attack anyone who enjoys it. Of course people get defensive. Your post is a perfect example of the casually dismissive, insulting tone I'm talking about. But whatever, I'm not even one of the people who get bashed on this forum so frequently for liking Byzantium. I just thought people were being rude and irrational. So I'm done. Enjoy.
 
Garak said:
The only time the word lazy was used was in reference to people refusing to start at a later date. That has nothing to do with Byzantium's "defense". And you calling it "ranting" is pretty offensive. This one country has nothing to do with the problem originally being discussed, but it remains that it was brought up for no reason and used as an excuse for people to attack anyone who enjoys it. Of course people get defensive. Your post is a perfect example of the casually dismissive, insulting tone I'm talking about. But whatever, I'm not even one of the people who get bashed on this forum so frequently for liking Byzantium. I just thought people were being rude and irrational. So I'm done. Enjoy.
Click to expand...
This is why I don't bother to post here much. I've read the whole thread, initially with some interest. Then it was like watching a train wreck, after one or two thin skinned people start feeling persecuted and lash out at everyone else, who then respond, in kind.

Dude, the term "rant" was used by the same guy who started calling everyone else lazy, not this guy. And it's pretty laughable to call that offensive, anyway. Also, I didn't seen ANYONE bashing people for liking Byzantium. And how is his post dismissive or insulting?! I guess some people were being rude and irrational, but look in the mirror, dude. Bit sensitive are we?
 
Thain_Took said:
Dude, the term "rant" was used by the same guy who started calling everyone else lazy, not this guy.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

@Garak - just read back if you don't believe me. There were two Byzantium-defenders who, in their own words, held a rant that DID call people lazy, and selfish, and strongly implied that they were stupid too. And yes, this was used in defense of Byzantium, b/c clearly, according to this rant, the Byz haters are too lazy and stupid to move the start date. It was used in the same bloody sentence. Hate Byzantium?=>you're a lazy stupid selfish kid.

Here, go check for yourself and then tell me that is not offensive: first there's this post, and then another poster felt the need to do approx. the same thing again in this one (ok the 2nd wasn't that offensive, albeit unnecessary).
 
Last edited:
Suggesting that more features be focused on the early game because people only play the early game is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy... if the early game is so much more interesting because it has more things going on, then of course once people get to the later game it will seem boring in comparison.

For what it's worth, when I play a game of EU3, I normally play all the way the earliest date to the last date, because I want the longest span of playing time possible. Stopping earlier (or starting later, for that matter) kind of defeats the purpose :)
 
This game should be from 1453-1789 like in the original.
 
Taiisatai64 said:
I would prefer a better match-up with the other Paradox games, 1453-1836 would be more acceptable.
Click to expand...

1789-1836 should be cowered by a separate game.
 
Last edited:
I think Paradox games should meld together more. Dynasties as simulated by CK were important long after CK ends (though the player goal of keeping one in power may be dropped). Vicky is all around awesome with demography, economy, industry, etc. And HoI of course is a great military sim, though it's a lot different from pre-industrial warfare. All the games could benefit from each other, or even not being separate at all.
 
Fishman786 said:
Or just inform people who want to play as the Byzantine Empire of an interesting little game called CK2, and move the start date to 1453 again. I know that I can just change the start date myself, but I miss out a whole load of content and stuff that way. Effort spent adding that content could have been used on improving Poland-Lithuania, making exploration more difficult and less tedious, or on the 'important' parts of the RoTW (like India, middle east, Russia etc).
Click to expand...

Because adding a decision that is as simple as 'have cores on x, y and z and you can unite xxxx' just takes so much effort! As for the Byzantines, I couldn't agree less... you do realise that Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 and that there were a lot of Greeks still living in Anatolia, right? I actually believe that they should have cores on counties deeper in Anatolia as well, but that probably wouldn't fit in gameplay-wise. But saying that they shouldn't have cores on Anatolia at all is just absurd and has no historical basis whatsoever ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919–1922) ). Α revived Roman Empire does sounds somewhat silly but that's because the Byzantine Empire didn't survive; if the Byzantines had somehow managed to get hold of most of the original roman territories, they sure as hell would have declared themselves to be the Roman Empire (for the record, they always did anyway). The Caliphate is a different story, though, I agree.
 
Ok I am a supporter of adding features in the game no matter where or when as long as it makes the game better and adds more replay feel to it.. but I am against taking things away.. I like the 1399 or 1356 or what ever the Golden Bull start date in lots of mods. but this dosen't mean that they couldn't add things to make Later dates better and also adding things for thouse who hate the early games start later.. I usally hate starting later too as the Ai seems to act weird, but if they fix this, I see no problem with the whole argument about the early features being usless. Playing Byz was fun to a lot of people and they weren't always easy to play but people just got better at playing the game...

I agree with the idea of two mods sandbox and a more historical maybe story campain feel.. which maybe gives you all the historical aspects at the time but also can go alt-historical due to wars, etc which should maybe take parts of Ck 2 game play like someone said the dyanisty feel would be cool in EU 4. as RM, and PU would make more since.. and not be just too random as you can't just RM everyone as who knows how many family members you have to acutally mary off.
 
Fishman786 said:
Why does everybody seem to want to slowly add more and more medieval stuff to the game? Revived Roman Empire? Byzantine cores on central Turkey? Releasable Al-Andalus? A formable Caliphate? Surely these things belong in CK, not in EU, which is about the Renaissance and 'enlightenment' periods. The shift back to 1399 as opposed to 1453 was bad enough, but can be coped with. But EUIII doesn't simulate medieval politics at all, and pushing the game further back just makes things more and more unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Take it FWIW. I actually want Vic and EU and CK and "BC Men" tucked together in one game. Think civilization series. I don't see anything wrong to gradually mash all this stuff together, opening some possibilities at age marks. I actually hate this game is chunked into several brands. And it's not about price, it's about immersion. Cmon, this game costs like a lunch. I want continuity.
 
gogis said:
Take it FWIW. I actually want Vic and EU and CK and "BC Men" tucked together in one game. Think civilization series. I don't see anything wrong to gradually mash all this stuff together, opening some possibilities at age marks. I actually hate this game is chunked into several brands. And it's not about price, it's about immersion. Cmon, this game costs like a lunch. I want continuity.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how well a grand unification of all the franchises will work, each game is very different and it would be hard to gradually shift from one gameplay type into another (though not impossible). It's definitely something I'd love to see, but I don't think it'll be coming for a long time.
 
NightKev said:
I'm not sure how well a grand unification of all the franchises will work, each game is very different and it would be hard to gradually shift from one gameplay type into another (though not impossible). It's definitely something I'd love to see, but I don't think it'll be coming for a long time.
Click to expand...

As far as that goes, the only real big hitch I can think of is CK's focus on dynasties, as opposed to whole "realms" in later games. Everything else comes down to unique features and mechanics that would be better shared. Of course, I'm not saying it's easy or going to happen anytime soon.

I think the blobbing, ahistorical butterfly effect problem could be mitigated by Victimizer's suggestion: an option (with varying degrees) between historical scripting and sandbox pure-simulation. Plus different start points.
 
moldeh said:
Because adding a decision that is as simple as 'have cores on x, y and z and you can unite xxxx' just takes so much effort! As for the Byzantines, I couldn't agree less... you do realise that Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 and that there were a lot of Greeks still living in Anatolia, right? I actually believe that they should have cores on counties deeper in Anatolia as well, but that probably wouldn't fit in gameplay-wise. But saying that they shouldn't have cores on Anatolia at all is just absurd and has no historical basis whatsoever ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919–1922) ). Α revived Roman Empire does sounds somewhat silly but that's because the Byzantine Empire didn't survive; if the Byzantines had somehow managed to get hold of most of the original roman territories, they sure as hell would have declared themselves to be the Roman Empire (for the record, they always did anyway). The Caliphate is a different story, though, I agree.
Click to expand...

Even the Ottomans had tremendous trouble keeping hold on the interior of Anatolia, I can't imagine how much greater that trouble would be for the Byzantines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back